Posted on 06/26/2012 3:14:30 PM PDT by kingattax
There’s been much speculation about whether the Obama administration has a Plan B ready in case the Supreme Court strikes down all or some of Obamacare. But it’s clear that the White House was ready today when the Court rejected its challenge to the constitutionality of an Arizona law requiring local law enforcement officers, during routine stops, to check the immigration status of anyone they suspect is in the country illegally.
The White House promptly reacted to the decision, which also struck down three important provisions through which Arizona attempted to counteract the federal government’s unwillingness to do anything much about the flood of illegal aliens into the State. First, and predictably, Obama renewed his call for comprehensive immigration reform. Sen. Harry Reid quickly echoed the White House, tweeting that “[Republicans] must join [Democrats] to forge fair, tough, practical solutions.”
Next, the administration announced measures designed to undermine the portion of the Arizona law that was upheld, unanimously, by the Supreme Court. The Department of Homeland Security said it would exclude Arizona from a program known as 287(g), which allows the feds to deputize local officials to make immigration-based arrests. A Homeland Security official explained that the administration finds such agreements “not useful” in states that have Arizona-style laws. I guess the program is “useful” only in states that aren’t taking meaningful measures to identify illegal aliens.
Accordingly, local police in Arizona will have to rely on federal officials to arrest illegal aliens. But federal officials have made it clear that the feds will not respond to calls from Arizona law enforcement unless the person detained meets certain criteria, such as being wanted for a felony. Being an illegal alien is not enough. As Obama showed with his unilateral mini-DREAM act, this administration is no longer interested in enforcing the immigration laws except perhaps against illegal aliens who are shown to have engaged in felonious conduct.
In addition, the Justice Department set up a hotline through which people can complain about having their immigration status checked by Arizona law enforcement officials. Obama thus hopes to drum up complaints against Arizona law enforcement agents. He wants to make the federal government a party to the harassment of those trying to do what Obama won’t – enforce the law. Obama hopes to intimidate them into not using their authority to address the severe problem of illegal immigration — authority granted by the state legislature and upheld as constitutional by the Supreme Court.
Given all of this, it’s quite clear that the Republicans should say “hell no” to Obama’s call for comprehensive immigration reform. Republicans must not permit themselves to be coerced into writing a new immigration law by Obama’s refusal to enforce the law we have.
Moreover, what is the point of legislating with a lawless administration? Legislation on an issue like immigration requires compromise, and that’s fine – I have no objection in principle to compromising. But suppose a compromise is reached. This president has demonstrated that his response would likely be to ignore the provisions the Republicans insisted upon – because ignoring them is “the right thing to do.” Immigration reform, if it is to occur, must await the election of a president who, unlike Obama, is willing to enforce the law as written, not just the portions of the law he finds palatable. Indeed, I’m tempted to say that the passage of compromise legislation on any important issue should await the election of such a president
That would be great...but, unfortunately, the GOPe has no spine.
The GOPe will never say “Hell No!”
But they WILL say, “Please, massuh, don’ call me racis’”.
The answer was loud and clear under Bush. If you won’t secure the borders, then don’t push some amnesty on us and call it comprehensive immigration reform.
Since these were obviously measures the Obama regime had decided upon in advance, we need to consider what their response will be if the Supreme Court strikes down all or part of Obamacare.
There is no doubt in my formerly military mind that Obama has already worked out ways to replace, by executive fiat if necessary, every one of the provisions that might be nullified by the Supreme Court decisions.
These people are not even pretending to respect the Constitution or Separation of Powers anymore. America is more than three quarters of the way to totalitarianism.
Yup. This would all end quickly if Bohner simply shut down congress until Obama regained compliance with the constitution.
But not a single congressman has the guts to even suggest it.
0b0z0 is NOT A US CITIZEN.
That is the mother of all the BIG ones. It was the first push of the envelope (his eligibiity).
And how, exactly, are Republicans to rein in this out-of-control paranoid maniacal sociopath? Sweet reason surely has no charms for him, nor is threat of any kind of restraint particularly effective.
Democrats, listen to James Carville, and step up, if you dare, to tell him that not just a line, but several of them, have been crossed, and there is precious little time to retreat from a place where he has burned far too many bridges already.
I wonder if some afternoons he just sits in the Oval Cubicle, grumbling to himself, “I HATE this effing job!”
Clearly, he is in WAY over his depth already, and just discovered the sharks are circling.
That means that our activism not loud enough OR the liberals are louder than we are.
My prediction: Romney will "try to find common ground", McCain will "reach across the aisle", Boehner will go into one of his crying jags then adjourn.
Rinse and repeat.
(I mean why would they change their MO now? It's worked so well in the past )
Yes I really believe that.
I know We used to be the spine of the politicians and we could hold them accountable. But, sadly tso, I'm just not sure we are/can, anymore.
I make calls and attend town halls, etc., etc. I even have a "conservative" rep. It seems like there's not a dime's worth of difference between most of 'em, now.
We have undergone a coup while America wallows in ignorance (what else would you call it?) and the Constitution is reduced to a meaningless relic, like the House of Windsor.
Yes I really believe that.
I agree.
Anyone not terrified of another 0bama term is not sane.
Sometimes when listening to Rush we assume that our reps are listening to him too. We must always assume they only watch MSNBC because they probably do.
They need to hear from us, our friends and relatives (the conservative ones preferably)
There are many things they are doing or NOT doing that commits them to the oath they took. They have NO excuse for that. The law is the law. I suppose we can always let them know that we know what the oath is and they had better keep it.
I think it means that they were/are willfully deaf, more concerned with becoming Democrats at minimum and want the country wrecked as much as the dems do. I am willing to weigh all evidence to the contrary...should any exist.
Both parties are Socialist tyrants. The game is rigged.
At what point does a President’s deliberate refusal to uphold and defend the Constitution and the laws of the United States qualify as an impeachable offense? If the reaction to the AZ decision isn’t it, what the hell is? It’s not just steps taken to compensate for the outcome of the case, but a deliberate attempt to subvert the effect of the decision by saying “We don’t care that the Court deemed AZ’s efforts to inquire about immigration status constitutional and we’re going to actively undermine their constitutional efforts to keep their citizens safe and employed.” Is there no one in the Republican Congressional caucus to take up the gauntlet and bring Articles of Impeachment for this latest and most extreme outrage against We the People?
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.